Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The importance of getting this legislation right cannot be overstated. [The development of an ETS] represents the most significant economic reform since the deregulation of the economy in the late 1980s. Getting this bill right is also important for the environment. Poor policy can also have unintended adverse environmental consequences.”

Moreover, “the legislative process has been rushed and inadequate given the bill’s complexity and significance. The public has not had adequate time to examine and submit on the bill, and it is inevitable that serious mistakes will be made that will adversely affect New Zealanders”.

Thus, “this process has not been conducive to getting such an important bill right nor in getting the cross-party support needed to ensure the stability and longevity of New Zealand’s ETS”.

This was Nick Smith last year after Labour had taken a year to pass its ETS, with a number of external fora and consultation periods before the Bill was introduced.

Grant Robertson calls is "breathtaking hypocricy". As I said in the introduction, sometimes even the Labour Party is right.

7 comments:

As someone has already said, "This is the ETS you design when you don't want an ETS".

And its not bad.. it leaves agriculture and industry untouched and punishes the tax payers who were dumb enough to believe the bullshit or too apathetic to kill Labour back in 2005.

National made it clear for years that it didn't believe the bullshit, and got panned for it, so it adjusted to give us what we wanted.. end of story. At least this way the export industries can get on with it.

If you define billing taxpayers for a shitload of cash to no purpose whatsoever as "not bad," it could perhaps meet that definition.

National's given us the worst of both worlds: they've introduced an artificial market for carbon, and at the same time they've rendered that artificial market incapable of sending any signals to carbon emitters because they're billing it all back to the taxpayer. Way to go, Nick - you're making me review my opinion on the death penalty.

Surely, whats "right" for the country is to abandon Kyoto, have no ETS, tell Copenhagen to go fuck themselves and then watch as the stupid poms, and the europeans ban all trade from our country or tax and tariff us so our prices are too high we cant sell anything.Yeah, thats the "right" thing to do.Sheesh, when are you guys going to realise that Key and Smith have NO choice about this.We are in Kyoto, the rest of the world believes in AGW and THEY are fucking us with it.You should have fought this battle 10 years ago cause unless the world turns its back on belief in AGW all your complaining is a waste of time.

Anon 6:30AM is right. We signed up to this bullshit because we thought there'd be an earn in it due to all our trees and grass. Then when they read paragraph 573 A) properly where it says post 1990 mitigation doesn't count (do older trees store carbon better than newer trees?) it all turned to poo. An excellent marketing job was done selling the problem, which has now left us with a Hobson's choice- tilt at windmills, or play their silly game. Can someone tell me this; how does carbon fall out of a tree when you cut it down and turn it into a house, or a box or a piece of furniture? Can it be seen happening with the naked eye?